soil-conservation-people-religion-and-land.pdf - South West NRM
soil-conservation-people-religion-and-land.pdf - South West NRM
soil-conservation-people-religion-and-land.pdf - South West NRM
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Some have suggested that the answer does not lie in <strong>West</strong>ern<br />
but in Eastern <strong>religion</strong>s that contain a view of man in nature<br />
(Smith, 1972). For example, Taoism includes the idea of man's<br />
harmony <strong>and</strong> unity with nature, <strong>and</strong> ~uddhism fosters reverence<br />
for all living creatures <strong>and</strong> an appreciation of the beauty of<br />
nature. But the nonowestern civilizations have also had<br />
drastic impact on the l<strong>and</strong> through overgrazing., <strong>soil</strong> erosion,<br />
<strong>and</strong> excessive deforestation.<br />
It appears that all of the great <strong>religion</strong>s, regardless of<br />
origin, have some ethic of responsibility toward nature built<br />
into their rich <strong>and</strong> diverse teachings. Each offers ethical<br />
guidelines for those who follow its basic tenets, but too many<br />
men <strong>and</strong> women in all parts of the world choose not to obey the<br />
imperative that we care for the earth <strong>and</strong> our fellow humans.<br />
According to Birch (1986) "Churches have not been in the<br />
vanguard of movements pressing for a life-centred ethic. The<br />
reasons include the notion that our main job is to remove<br />
oppression <strong>and</strong> injustice to humans. To add another task to<br />
that immense one is a distraction from the main task. But<br />
this is not a case of either/or but both/<strong>and</strong>; to fight<br />
oppression wherever it exists, both in human lives <strong>and</strong> in nonhuman<br />
lives. Is the one <strong>and</strong> only object to work for healthy<br />
<strong>and</strong> free <strong>people</strong>? Do we really believe that this one objective<br />
can be achieved without concern for the rest of the creation?<br />
If so, it shows how narrow our horizon is. In the long run,<br />
we look after ourselves by looking after nature because nature<br />
<strong>and</strong> its inhabitants look after us. This is an empirical<br />
reason for being concerned about nature. But it is not a<br />
sufficient reason. It is not enough to give the non-human<br />
creation instrumental value only. For that is to see nonhuman<br />
lives as means only <strong>and</strong> not as ends in themselves, as<br />
objects <strong>and</strong> not as subjects. To do that is to deny any<br />
intrinsic value to creatures other than ourselves, <strong>and</strong><br />
therefore to deny them any value to God.l1<br />
Which paw is best? Will ecology, humanism, various forms of<br />
<strong>West</strong>ern <strong>religion</strong>, or the teachings of Eastern <strong>religion</strong>s<br />
provide us with the imperative that will help us cherish <strong>and</strong><br />
preserve life? There seems to be no one way for all humans.<br />
History provides. us with examples of. men <strong>and</strong> women who have<br />
acted with ultimate concern for nature <strong>and</strong> human life by<br />
following each of these diverse teachings. As. an unknown<br />
theologian once asked: 'How dare we mere mortals restrict God<br />
to only one path?'18<br />
Even without an Eleventh Comm<strong>and</strong>ment calling humankind to<br />
cherish Nature <strong>and</strong> ensuring all living creatures a right to<br />
co-exist, much spiritual reward is obtained by those true<br />
"deep ecologist^^^ who practise what they preach. In the<br />
writer's first contribution to this subject (Roberts, 1974)<br />
the similarity between good l<strong>and</strong> managers <strong>and</strong> sensitive